When crossfire has a good profile for a particular game the scaling is usualy more then 40%. Minimum framerates go up as well, usually as much or more then the average framerate does. I wouldn't use dual GPU cards if they didn't improve the average AND the minimum.Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
It's 40% faster on average at 2560x1600 with some AA (2x-4x) in general still for a stock 5970 compared to a 5870, from what I've seen with newer drivers (I haven't seen a good article on 10.3a's yet). Regardless, 40% on a slower 5970's GPU's (core clocks/etc.) isn't 40% over a 5870, anyway: the 5870 has higher stock speeds and can clock higher when oc'ing as well. Crossfire tends to spike your max FPS making an awesome-looking average, while not really helping the minimums a whole lot for the most part. I don't need 20min, 75avg. 140 max, I need 50min, 80avg, 110 max!
Since you guys trust SKYMTL I used his 5970 review for the basis of the numbers: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-10.html
I included the % faster 5970 is versus 5870 in average and minimum framerates:
It was just a quick review of the numbers so I may have messed a few up. And that review was with old drivers so some games have been fixed or improved. The point is that you will get different results out of CF/SLI depending on the game and resolution you use. But on average if the game isn't CPU bound or the drivers lacking a profile the scaling of a 5970 is usually significantly better then 40%.Code:COD:WAW 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF: +54% AVG, +41% MIN 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF: +45% AVG, +38% MIN COJ No crossfire profile Crysis: Warhead (DX10) 1920x1200 2xAA: +57% AVG, +62% MIN 2560x1600 2xAA: +48% AVG, +0% MIN Dawn of War 2 No profile Fallout 3 CPU Bound Far Cry 2 (DX10) 1920x1200 4xAA: +45% AVG, +60% MIN 2560x1600 4xAA: +46% AVG, +55% MIN 2560x1600 8xAA: +44% AVG, +108% MIN L4D 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF: CPU bound 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF: +49% AVG, +54% MIN 2560x1600 8xAA/16xAF: +50% AVG, +51% MIN Hawx 1920x1200 4xAA: +64% AVG, +79% MIN 2560x1600 4xAA: +62% AVG, +0% MIN 2560x1600 8xAA: +43% AVG, +29% MIN
Also we should take into consideration that ATI isn't just going to sit around waiting. They are encouraging board makers to make higher clocked versions and there is the looming prospect of a revision. Even if a 5970 was only 40% faster then 5870 and if a Fermi was enough to match it, would it be enough to match an extra 15% or more in the newer cards? Ultimately we won't know until some reviews, which aren't that far off anyway.
But this is quite off topic. We aren't here to discuss 5970 scaling. We are here to discuss Fermi and only ATI products in so far as they relate to Fermi. If you want to talk multi-GPU scaling further I'm sure we could start a thread about it.
I wouldn't call ATI's drivers excellent. But I haven't been having any worse trouble then I have with Nvidia drivers lately. After swapping my GTX285 and a friend's 5970 a number of times I can say I am not really impressed with either company's drivers and am quite disappointed in the downturn in quality on the NV side (I used to hold them in high regard).Excellent?
I agree, personal attacks are unwarranted. We should all remember that not everyone has the same experiences, needs, and desires. My anecdotal evidence doesn't necessarily apply to you any more then yours applies to me.Just because I post that I had bad experiences with ATI products doesn't make me a fanboy of nvidia's stuff. I tried the 10.2 drivers prior to selling my 5870, as well, same issues mostly, as I said in my posts if you had actually read them instead of just going "OMG must be an nV fanboy!!!!" at first glance
. Just because someone doesn't like one product doesn't make them a zealot of the competitor automatically, unless you are a fanboy of the one they don't like you wouldn't construe comments like I make as that.
Bookmarks